Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7168

Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t)

Show all headers | View raw

Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> writes:

> On 06/27/2011 07:51 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Mark Bluemel<mark_bluemel@pobox.com>  writes:
>>
>>> On 06/25/2011 06:07 PM, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> An alternative offered for everyone's reading pleasure
>>>> and/or amusement (as each may individually determine).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    /* Return 1 if 'tail' occurs at the end of 'whole', or 0 if not. */
>>>>
>>>>    int
>>>>    strend( const char *whole, const char *tail ){
>>>>       size_t w, t;
>>>>
>>>>       return
>>>>          whole&&    tail
>>>>          &&     (w = strlen( whole ))>=  (t = strlen( tail ))
>>>>          &&     strcmp( whole+w -t, tail ) == 0
>>>>       ;
>>>>    }
>>>
>>> Now if you'd used 'lo1' for "whole", "l0l" for "tail", "lol" for "w"
>>> and "l01" for "t", it would have been even more perfect...
>>
>> Personally I think the single character identifiers do just fine
>> here, considering the length of the function, and their obvious
>> relationship to identifiers 'whole' and 'tail'.  But if you think
>> longer variable names would be helpful, by all means feel free.
>>
>> If there are some other reservations or objections, please do
>> the group a favor and try to articulate what they are and why.
>
> No objections or reservations. My posting was decidedly facetious.

Oh okay.  I missed the intended tone then.

> I very much like your solution, but it's terseness somehow made me
> think of the IOCC and hence led me to suggest some obvious
> obfuscations.

I know some people think code being terse automatically makes
it obfuscated, but I don't share that opinion.  Writing code
compactly sometimes gives good code and sometimes bad, depending
on the particulars.  I do think that some aesthetic judgment
is required:  choices that work well in short functions often
fall down in longer functions, and vice versa.  Being exposed
to different styles is IMO a benefit, and that's a large part
of why I posted this alternative.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) arnuld <sunrise@invalid.address> - 2011-06-23 10:56 +0000
  Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-23 23:03 +1200
  Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-06-23 13:28 +0100
  Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2011-06-23 14:08 +0100
    Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-06-24 02:22 +0300
      Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-06-23 18:14 -0700
        Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-24 06:18 +0000
          Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-24 06:58 +0000
    Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-25 10:07 -0700
      Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) arnuld <sunrise@invalid.address> - 2011-06-27 08:02 +0000
        Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2011-06-27 10:13 +0100
        Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-27 11:54 -0700
      Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2011-06-27 09:07 +0100
        Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-27 11:51 -0700
          Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Mark Bluemel <mark_bluemel@pobox.com> - 2011-06-28 08:19 +0100
            Re: K&R2, exercise 5-4, strend(s,t) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-28 16:03 -0700

csiph-web